Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Technology News

Allnet GPL Infringement Settled Constructively 213

Posted by simoniker from the that's-the-way-to-do-it dept.
Elektroschock writes "LWN has coverage of a GPL dispute settled in a constructive manner. Allnet GmbH, German manufacturer and distributor of networking equipment, including switches, routers, NICs and wireless adapters, infringed the GNU Public License of netfilter/iptables. As part of the settlement Allnet GmbH will donate money to tax-exempt not-for-profit organizations, i.e. FSF Europe and FFII. Both organisations lobby for better copyright and patent legislation in Europe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Allnet GPL Infringement Settled Constructively More

Allnet GPL Infringement Settled Constructively

Comments Filter:
  • Wow... people resolving lawsuits....GPL related... and it's on slashdot.... I... I'm speechless... I want to make fun of somebody and talk about how sucky the world is... i..i... can't.....
    • I want to make fun of somebody and talk about how sucky the world is

      You'll just have to wait for the next SCO story then. Patience is a virtue. So is agreeing to abide by the GPL.

    • Re:Cold Spine Shiver (Score:5, Funny)

      by upside ( 574799 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:02AM (#8324743) Journal
      Don't worry, we can still turn this into a
      - Windows vs Linux
      - Linux vs *BSD
      - America vs Europe
      - Conservative vs Liberal
      or
      - Everyone vs Mac flamewar

      • Don't worry, we can still turn this into a [foo vs. bar] flamewar

        Yeah, you upsiders would love that, wouldn't you!

      • Hey! (Score:4, Funny)

        by AlXtreme ( 223728 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:24AM (#8324823) Homepage Journal
        You forgot emacs vs vim!

        Damn kids these days, they just don't know how to start a proper flamewar...

        • Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)

          by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:56AM (#8324905)
          Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
          Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
          message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
          and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

          Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
          are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
          not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
          SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
          FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

          --Patrick J. LoPresti

          KFG

          • Re:Hey! (Score:3, Informative)

            by dasmegabyte ( 267018 )
            I like Pico. It doesn't bother me with "options"...and unlike vi, Pico tells me how to exit the program right there at the bottom of the screen...no man pages needed!
            • I like Pico.

              I like Nano, which is the GNU Pico clone, and doesn't require PINE. Although I like pine (in spite of GPL incompatible status) I am getting used to mutt. I still "ln -s ../nano ../pico" because I am used to calling PINE instead of NANO.. some habits die hard. But all and all, Nano seems exactly like Pico in every respect, and conforms to truly "Free".
              • I just install PINE.

                To use an inferior clone of a product just because it is "free" is to shackle one's self with ideology.

                I might use a "free" mailreader if it were significantly better (and I do use Thunderbird on Windows). But Pine is a great program, and is a product of education and research, things which I consider more important than the freedom to poke around in source code.
                • I understand what you are saying, im not a "free only" freak about software. Free is nice, when possible. I mean, im writing this on a windows box, with 4 PUTTY ssh windows open to the servers ;)

                  I don't find Nano to be inferior, however. I can't tell the difference for what I do, basic CONF file editing, etc. I also don't consider mutt to be inferior to Pine. I am more used to pine/pico and still have them installed on several systems, but that doesn't make mutt/nano any LESS of program.

                • Re:Hey! (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Bob Uhl ( 30977 )
                  What's funny, then, is that mutt is the superior of the two: it's a much better mail reader than pine.

                  To use an inferior product just because you don't wish to be free is to shackle oneself with ideology.

                  Even were mutt inferior to pine, its freedom would mean that you could improve it yourself.

                • A lot better. I use it almost all the time.

                  When pico gets mouse support, highlighting, bracket match, regex search/replace, and multiple buffers, let me know.
                  • Seems to me you're just adding a bigger exhaust to a perfectly fine automobile. If I wanted to use a mouse, highlight text and search and replace to multiple buffers, I wouldn't be using Pine in the first place. I'd be using a graphical tool.

                    Adding features you ripped off of other products doesn't make your product better. It just makes it more complicated. Microsoft Word?
          • Real men program with toggle switches.

        • Then it has to be vim vs. genuine UNIX vi. The free vi clones are all too complex and go against the grain of UNIX philosophy. I don't want my vi clone to render HTML. I also don't want my vi clone to do all sorts of fancy tabbing and highlighting. If I wanted all that crap, I'd use emacs.

        • "You forgot emacs vs vim!"

          O'Brien would NEVER use VIM!!!
        • Damn kids these days, they just don't know how to start a proper flamewar...

          Fortran vs. Assembler
          CRT terminals vs. Decwriters
          Punched paper tape vs. Cassette tape

      • Re:Cold Spine Shiver (Score:4, Funny)

        by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @06:14AM (#8324948)
        * windows vs. linux

        Well, IPtables is part of the Linux Kernel.

        * Linux vs. *BSD

        Under a BSD license Alltechs action wopuld be legal.

        * America vs. Europe

        In America it would have been a campaign like SCo's. Stallman cries loud echoed by 200 mailing lists As Alltech "stole Linux" Alltech must be owned by Linus. A German world conpiracy, a takeover of the internet backbone
        the press writes, the case show the legal incertainties of the GPL. No 3 billion$ as Alltech does not have three billion.

        * conservative vs. liberal

        I am conservative, I like liberal licenses

        * everyone vs. MAC

        humm, Mac do hav a license? How is the Mac Eula of this proprietary platform called. :-)

    • Re:Cold Spine Shiver (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:03AM (#8324747)
      I remind you of SCO's IBM/Linux copyright infringement claims, I remind you you of the validity problems of the GPL.

      Don't forget Netfilter.org 'owned Allnet' :-)

      The settlement example shows how it is done in 'real business'. No media dirt, no false accusations, no 3 billion$ infringement lawsuits.

    • The GPL appears in the most peculiar places... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blorg ( 726186 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @06:14AM (#8324946)
      For example, there was a copy of the GPL in the box with the last projector I bought (a Panasonic PT-AE200E). One of the features of this projector is projecting digital photos straight off an SD card, and it appears that the slideshow software used was released under the GPL. I wonder how long it will be before we see copies of the GPL arriving with new microwave ovens?

      • Re:The GPL appears in the most peculiar places... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ProudClod ( 752352 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @08:06AM (#8325275)
        Yeah, my netgear router came with a card linking to source downloads for the innards, due to the GPL. Good to see people care.
        • I've seen copies of the GPL with computer hardware before, too. I guess the reason I was making point about this projector in particular was that it is a home theatre projector rather than a computer/presentation one, and this was the first time I'd seen a copy of the GPL bundled with a consumer device.

          As ordinary consumer devices become more computerised, we will likely see more GPL code embedded in such devices as it's cheaper than developing from scratch for the manufacturer. What I'd worry about is wh

  • How is GPL code valued in damages? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Slashdotted ( 665535 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:00AM (#8324732)
    Acording to LWN, a "significant donation" was made.

    How is (a violation of) IPTables valued? Since this was a "donation" under German law, I wonder if the amount is part of the public record. Can any Germans comment?

  • It's nice with good news for a change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by koody ( 575863 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:03AM (#8324745)
    "We are very happy with the cooperative manner of Allnet in which this issue was resolved and an amicable agreement reached", notes Harald Welte, the Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team. It's really nice to get some good news instead of the average sco cr*p of the GPL being unconstitutional or viral. All this talk about how gpl is a difficult license because it's incompatible with other licenses, and people don't seem to grasp that it's only incompatible with licenses that have more RESTRICTIONS than the gpl, ie if your brand new license v 1.0 has other restrictions besides the ones the gpl accepts, it's quite natural that it will be incompatible. It's like saying, "hey this source is free for you to copy, reproduce but you may never show it to anyone", oh and gpl sucks becuase the fsf say's we're not compatible with their silly little license. Here we see the power of gpl and fsf. It's been said that the gpl is weak because it's never been tested in court. Well maybe there's a reason. Maybe becuase fsf and the open source movement is gaining momentum and companies are trying not to gain new enemies from potential customers. There are still some that do not realize that alienating customers might be bad for business, and that the gpl is a license to adhere to, just as any other license. Take KISS as an example with their way of handling the mplayer debacle, I for one am not going to support kiss-technology.com as long as they maintain their arrogant position. Vote with your wallets, support free software.

    • Re:It's nice with good news for a change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:16AM (#8324784) Homepage
      people don't seem to grasp that [the GPL is] only incompatible with licenses that have more RESTRICTIONS than the gpl

      You seem to misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is not only incompatible with licenses which have *more* restrictions than the GPL; it is incompatible with licenses which have *different* restrictions.

      For example, the following license is GPL-incompatible, but it is vastly more free:

      Anti-msikvwebasdoiju public license:
      1. You may do anything you want with works distributed under this license, except for including them in a software project called "msikvwebasdoiju".

      • Actually, I understand the licese just fine. That's why I clarified that "ie if your brand new license v 1.0 has other restrictions besides the ones the gpl accepts" it won't be gpl compatible.

        Anti-msikvwebasdoiju public license:
        1. You may do anything you want with works distributed under this license, except for including them in a software project called "msikvwebasdoiju".         That is an addtional restriction. I cannot really think of a way to write a lisence that would stand true to the ideal of fre

    • Re:It's nice with good news for a change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:45AM (#8324880)
      IANAL, but this is how I understand it works:

      The GPL hasn't been tested in court because whenever a company asks their lawyers exactly what the GPL says, they realise that there are two choices (if they actually did use the GPL'd source):

      - say the GPL is invalid, which if you win reduces it to a copyright infringement lawsuit, since the GPL is the only thing that allows you to use GPL'd code, and having it declared invalid means you lose all rights to use that code. (Courts really frown on copyright infringement, and this would become a very costly lawsuit to win.)

      - say the GPL is valid, and settle.

      In other words, the best thing you can do is maintain the status quo (sort of) by settling. Actually going to court makes you lose, even if you win, which is why no one has ever gone to court over it. Not even SCO.

      You can say a lot of things about the FSF and the GPL, but you've got to admit it's pretty darn clever.

      • There is a third option. The could go to the original authors of the GPL'd code and negotiate a different license. This wouldn't be to hard if all the code was written by an individual or single company, but if it was something like the Linux kernel it would probably be impossible. IIRC, they would need permission from everyone whose code is in the version concerned.

        IANAL etc...

    • It's been said that the gpl is weak because it's never been tested in court. Well maybe there's a reason. Maybe becuase fsf and the open source movement is gaining momentum and companies are trying not to gain new enemies from potential customers.

      I think you've just undermined your own cheerleading. What you've just described above is known as a bubble... people foregoing rationality and prudence (ie going with a license that has not, as you point out, been tested in court) in order to be on the bleeding

  • Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:04AM (#8324749)
    Why do certain companies not research beforehand, that what they are doing is illegal?
    Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?

    I know money is a strong factor, but should morals really go out the window?

    A company should really research the terms of the license, of a product they are using, but perhaps they just hope that people won't notice...
    After all, it is easy money, if no one finds out.
    • A company should really research the terms of the license, of a product they are using, but perhaps they just hope that people won't notice...

      And perhaps it shouldn't be a requirement to ask lawyers for every business decision you make whether or not you're breaking the law by doing it.

      In a perfect world, the GPL shouldn't even have to exist. There should be a government-mandated copyleft structure. It's because of government's failure to do anything but the most restrictive copyright that copyleft was c

    • Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by o'reor ( 581921 )
      Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?

      They just hope to get away with it while trying not to draw too much attention. If it were not for one or two whistleblowers, they would have gotten away with it and sold their modified version of the software without giving anything back to the community.

      Fortunately, in the Free Software world, eyes are many and if bugs are not always shallow, at least people who are trying to infringe the GPL have very lit

    • Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaveti3199 ( 754358 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @06:01AM (#8324918)
      Perhaps the GPL is perceived by some "free as in beer". The lack of a profit motive for those GPLing their work might make some companies think that they can reuse GPL code without fear of legal let or hindrance. For some GPL may be confused with other less restrictive software licenses that basically allow you to do what you like with the code. Even if this had got to court and the GPL stood up, it would probably have had little impact on the attitude US courts took in the future.
      • That's no excuse for not actually reading the license.

        I could understand that arguement in a communist society, but here we have to obey laws like copyright. Did they just happen to accidentally start a company without understanding copyright?

        Both the GNU website and the license state VERY clearly what can and cannot be done with the software. So clearly an average American computer scientist like me (no degree, bad spelling) understood it completely upon reading it 5 years ago. I've read it a couple t

    • A company should really research the terms of the license, of a product they are using, but perhaps they just hope that people won't notice...
      After all, it is easy money, if no one finds out.
      Are you kidding me? Nothing is easy money in the software industry these days! The barrier to entry is high enough that it's next to impossible not to use open source, and adhering to the terms of the license will drive your stock price down to zero. It's not hard to see why some companies see subverting the GPL as t
    • If they did research, they'd realize the following:

      1) I can use this code, but I have to provide source to my customers.
      2) I can save a little effort by not providing code.
      3) If I get caught, I'll just provide the code and make a donation to charity and get a tax break.

      It's easy to overlook the risk that a developer may not want to settle. My guess would be that most violators are lazy and don't think they'll get caught anyway.

    • Why do certain companies not research beforehand, that what they are doing is illegal?
      Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?

      Well, think about it for a second: who knows where the code came from? The developers, not the lawyers.

      So, Developer goes to his supervisor (who may or may not be a PHB) and says, "Listen, we can do this more quickly and easily if we incorporate this code, which is available under the GPL." Boss-guy says, "Hey, whatever

  • AAAAAAARRRGH! (Score:2, Funny)

    by darnok ( 650458 )
    I've been taught that copyright infringement is really piracy, so these guys are pirates!

    AAAAAARRRGH! Ye knows whats we does with pirates, don't ye? We keelhauls them, we do, matey!

    More seriously, I'm dying to hear of one, just *one*, case of GPL infringement by a RIAA member organisation. Oh, the fun we'll have...

    • Re:AAAAAAARRRGH! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by radio4fan ( 304271 )
      Weeelll.... It's not GPL, but RIAA members Warner Music appear to be using the linkware MojoFAQ [mojoscripts.com] without the required link on Enya.com [enya.com] (view the source, Luke).

      So whilst it's not a GPL violation, it could well be THEFT*

      Puts 'em in the scuppers with a hosepipe on 'em!

      *(c) RIAA

  • Good News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:06AM (#8324756)
    Its good to seea positive outcome come out from this. FSF doesnt have to waste money going to court. and Allnet continues to use the gpl code to further the penetration of open source work into the market. If Allnet did not settle they wouldve been crushed when common copyright law came down on them like a tonne of bricks.

  • Constructive? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:09AM (#8324764) Homepage
    Lawyers file lawsuit. Lawyers settle lawsuit, with defendant agreeing to donate money to lawyers. How is this constructive?

    Rather than giving money to the FSF, why not give money to groups [spi-inc.org] which write free [freebsdfoundation.org] software [netbsd.org]?

    • Re:Constructive? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Veridium ( 752431 )
      "Rather than giving money to the FSF, why not give money to groups which write free software?"

      I think giving the money to the FSF Europe is a better idea, as it benefits a much wider group of Free software developers. From their website:

      The FSF Europe supports, coordinates and develops projects in the Free Software area, especially the GNU Project.

      It also provides computer resources to Free Software developers to enable them to continue their developments.

      The FSF Europe helps companies to develo

    • What lawsuit? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phr1 ( 211689 )
      That press release doesn't say anything about a lawsuit. It just says there was a settlement and that there was infringement. Presumably there was at least the threat of a lawsuit, but it doesn't say whether a suit was actually filed. Does anyone know? And yes, the FSF writes free software--perhaps you've heard of GCC, for example.

    • Good vs. Bad (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Talisman ( 39902 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:23AM (#8324817) Homepage
      Think of it as a capital shift from the Bad Lawyers to the Good Lawyers, that in the process establishes a legal precedent for future GPL cases.

      Not all lawyers are bad, ya know...

      Tal

    • Re:Constructive? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:31AM (#8324839)
      FSF Europe is NOT FSF.

      Free Software Forundation Europe, that's Georg Greve and the European crowd, no zelots that force you to call your operating system GNU/linux. They are well respected European lobbyists. Money spent on EU lobbying saves a lot for projects. For instance the EU IPR enforcement directive may be very dangerous for EU citizens that 'just write code'.

      And FFII is probably the most succesful player in patent legislation over the past 30 years. Patent attorney made their own laws for a long time.

      • Re:Constructive? (Score:3, Informative)

        by arrianus ( 740942 )
        I would like to point out that the FSF is also not a bunch of zealots. RMS is the founder, but it is run by a lot of people. Even if you don't like RMS (although a lot of the reason he's been marginalized stems from ESR badmouthing him/exaggarating his problems, rather than RMS himself), they are a big organization. Most of the other head honchos over the FSF are quite amazing.

        Eben Moglen (the chief counsel of the FSF, law professor at Columbia) is extremely reasonable, competent and friendly. He is a bril
    • with defendant agreeing to donate money to lawyers

      Um, these organazations are run by lawyers yes, but most of them are actually donating alot of their time. These donations are going into the pocket of a money hungry lawyer, it's going to pay other neccesary legal fees and court fees to help keep free software free. No point in writing free software if people can trample over your rights. I can't believe you'd say anything negative about these sorts of groups... *sigh*

  • When does FSF publish its GPL enforcement cases? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by replicant_deckard ( 447694 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:10AM (#8324765) Homepage
    FSF has said they will later publish some statistics from 'GPL compliance lab' like a number of GPL infringement cases they have so far settled out of courts. I guess there must be plenty of them already all over the world. For some unknown reason they have already given more GPL enforcement information in their _proprietary_ seminar [gnu.org] tagged for hunders of bucks... free as in freedom, not as in...

  • Wrong link, AllNET, not AllTECH (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19, 2004 @05:55AM (#8324900)
    The link to Allnet is wrong in a way which suggests that it's spam. The correct link is http://www.allnet.de/ [allnet.de].

  • GPL be damned. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @06:06AM (#8324932) Journal
    I'd be much happier if companies were forced to release good, unhindered specs/APIs... I don't care if you didn't give out your specific implementation, fine... whatever... but give me the means to create my own implementation that can function the same as theirs. Is that soo much to ask?
    • This is not impossible. One approach is to have government procurment require open specs of all API's, confirmed to be open and usable by a third party. Since most software and hardware companies are interested in selling to the government they would have an incentive to fulfill these requirements, without any real law over what they could do.

      These specs would really have to be open and completely free. That means they could not be specified with GPL or any copyright or any license. The interesting thing a

  • TBH (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WillAtMH ( 735233 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @07:47AM (#8325196)
    I have to admit, when companies act like this in the face of adversity it makes me want to buy their stuff.

  • Show me the code! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wubby ( 56755 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @08:33AM (#8325406) Homepage Journal
    But did they release the code? Donations be damned, the GPL says (paraphrasing here): "Do what ye will, but show me the code you distribute, me hardys!"

    Otherwise they continue to violate, right?

    If ($distribution > 0 && $source < 0)
    if ($money > $cha-ching)
    violate = 0
    else
    violate = 1
    fi
    fi
    • Otherwise they continue to violate, right?

      FUCK no. The GPL allows the author to keep his original copyright and resell the work under any license he pleases. This is why many products like MySQL have an available "Commercial License" for people who want to use the code, but don't want to have to release their proprietary works to the community.

      If you're using such software, and you don't release your source, the legal ramifications are that you either have to release the source, or buy a license so you

  • Most Importantly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @08:45AM (#8325483)
    Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It will further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products without adhering to the GPL.

    In contract law (of which licensing law is just a part), at least in the US, breaches of contract are generally presumed to be completely solved by the payment of damages (money). Forcing someone to behave in accordance with the contract terms is called specific performance. The remedy of specific performance is usually limited to a very narrow class of cases (the classic example is a contract for the sale of land), Anytime you can get specific performance of a contract, it is a FANTASTIC result.

    • You confuse the GPL with a contract. It's not. The GPL is not a binding contract, it does not require agreement between the parties, and a violation is not a breach of contract violation.

      The GPL _is_, however, the only grant of permission you have to distribute the copyrighted 'intellectual property' distributed under the GPL. If you dont agree to, or follow, the terms of the GPL you're not in breach of contract, you're in violation of copyright law. Behaving in accordance with the terms of the GPL is the
      • Sorry, but I am not confused. However, you may be. Licenses such as the GPL are indeed contracts. They are unilateral contracts in the sense that the party accepting the license performs its contractual obligations by following the tterms of the license. The granting party performs by allowing a permissive use of the licensed property.

        Licenses are IN ADDITION TO any protection granted by copyright law. Copyright law prohibits the copying of content WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. The license gran

        • Shrink wrap licenses are in addition to. The GPL is not in addition to. The GPL contains no contractual provisions, and deals entirely in the terms required to obtain the permission of the owner to engage in distribution. The GPL is a bare license with conditions. You meet the conditions you get the right. You dont, you dont get the right.

          This is what makes the GPL compatible with most legal systems, what makes it pointless to fight in court and what makes it so easily enforcable. Were it a contract it wou
          • Sorry, but you are flat wrong. Show me a single court case in which the GPL was held NOT to be a license and I'll reconsider my position. By the way, do you have any formal legal training that you can draw upon to support this position or is your opinion merely formed by reading news articles on the GPL?
            • "Show me a single court case in which the GPL was held NOT to be a license and I'll reconsider my position."

              As the GPL is a copyright license it is enforced through copyright law and there wont be any case ever about a 'GPL violation'. Any such 'violation' is simply copyright infringement and any court case about it would be a civil or criminal copyright violation case, not a civil contract case.

              But ok, I'll do some research for you.

              License, not contract [groklaw.net]

              Moglen. [columbia.edu]

              Australian perspective [ilaw.com.au]

              Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

              Th

              • Whoops, sorry Compugeek, but after reading the articles linked to in the parent post I now think that you were wrong all along ...
              • any court case about it would be a civil or criminal copyright violation case, not a civil contract case..

                WRONG! If you read my bio, you'll see that I am a lawyer - and one who specializes in Intellectual Proprty issues relating to computer software. I have yet to see or even hear of a licensing case that didn't also include copyright claims. The license breach is always designated as a breach of contract action because that is exactly what it is.

                Go to Cem Kaner's site [badsoftware.com]and you'll see that the newest pr

          • Correction - held not to be a CONTRACT. I mistyped.
        • Sorry, but I am not confused. However, you may be. Licenses such as the GPL are indeed contracts.

          I would be interested in your analysis of why this [groklaw.net] article is completely wrong, then. When it was discussed earlier on /., there were lots of people who were dubious, but no one with specific legal training in IP law came forward to dispute the concepts presented by Pamela Jones.
          • Two points: Ms. Jones actually proves that the GPL IS a contract with one of her cites defining a contract as: a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088.

            This definition fits the GPL. The licensor is obligated to refrain from enforcing its copyright because it has granted permission to use the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. The li

        • Licenses are IN ADDITION TO any protection granted by copyright law. Copyright law prohibits the copying of content WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. The license grants that permission. It is entirely possible to breach the contractual provisions of a license (such as not paying royalties which are standard provsiions in most licenses) without violating copyright law.

          This is where you made a mistake. The difference with the GPL is that it is impossible to break the GPL without also breaking copyright.
          • there is zero need to enforce the GPL because you can rely on the far more popular, enforced, and easy-to-understand laws and regulations of copyright to completely cover it.

            My apologies, but what tree did you fall out of? I don't know ANYONE who would begin to argue that Copyright law is easier to understand than contract law.

            Assuming for this analysis that you are correct that it is impossible to violate the GPL without also violating someone's copyright, that simply means that TWO civil offenses have

  • Once and for all wake the fuck up. It's NOT a GPL infringement/violation. It's COPYRIGHT infringement/violation.
    I can't believe people are still submitting news posts to slashdot like that. Scroll up and re-read the post.

  • "[GPL not enforcable]" -Blake Stowell (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GodWasAnAlien ( 206300 ) on Thursday February 19, 2004 @11:25AM (#8327386)
    On the subject of GPL disregard:
    When questioned about SCO bundling GPL programs, Blake Stowell said:

    "Our issue is with the enforceability of the GPL".

    -

    When software is released with a GPL license, the author(s) still retains the copyright, but is granting specific terms under which the copyrighted work may be used without consulting the author.

    If Mr. Stowell and SCO do not believe that the terms of license are valid, then the agreement of the license is nullified, and use of the work without other permission from the author is breaking copyright law.

    Under these special circumstances, I believe that the authors of the GPL software in question should get clarification, and ask SCO for a written agreement to the terms of the GPL, or else demand a halt to the software use, and possibly payment for any infringement.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close